|
|
|
|
|
by ellyagg
6070 days ago
|
|
It's disappointing that the highest rated comment is essentially ad hominem. I've been aware of the CTMU for many years and was hoping smart folks would engage his ideas. Sadly, it appears the intellectual insecurity here is as great as that attributed to Langan. Arrogance and insecurity may be regrettable traits for getting along with people, but are irrelevant to the truth of a matter. Truth/falsity should be judged on its merits. > Still, I don't doubt he has some mental agility Pretty condescending. That's sort of like finding someone who has a vertical leap 8 inches greater than Michael Jordan and saying "I don't doubt he has some athleticism..." Maybe you don't think transcendent jumping ability necessarily makes you a good basketball player, but you'd sure give someone with that trait a harder look. In a similar vein, you may not think an IQ score is the final word in apprehending great truths, but you should certainly take a little extra care, I'd think. At least, when I encounter analysis by someone who is significantly smarter than I am, and I don't fully understand their claims, my first impulse isn't to be dismissive or make ill-defined, hand-wavy criticisms. |
|
I don't mean to heap ad hominem on him, I'm simply pointing out that if one is trying to present their ideas then they ought to present them clearly without recourse to attempting to make themselves appear more complex and sophisticated. There are even examples on this very thread of people illustrating much the same ideas as in the original article in a better format.
From a personal perspective, I have a lot of sympathy for him, I watched the entire series of youtube videos about him and I find it something approaching an indictment of humanity that this guy is a bouncer.
I think your dismissive rebuke is just not digging deep enough.